i.

Student Name:
Michelle C. Llaneta-Villamora

ii. Complete Case Title Citation:

Dee Chuan & Sons v. CIR, G.R. No. L-2216, 31 Jan 1950

iii. Statement of the Issue:

Whether or not the order issued by the Court of Industrial Relations restraining Dee
C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. from its liberty to engage the men it pleases is valid.

iv. Complainant’s Arguments:

The petitioner averred that the order of the CIR restrained their request for authority
to hire about twelve (12) more laborers from time to time and on a temporary basis
with a proviso that “the majority of the laborers to be employed should be native.”

v. Respondent’s Argument:
The respondent argued that the order does not constitute an unlawful intrusion into
the sphere of legislation, by attempting to lay down a public policy of the state or to
settle a political question. The court’s action falls within the legitimate scope of its
jurisdiction. The order does not formulate a policy and is not political in character. It is
not a permanent, all embracing regulation. It is a compromise and emergency measure
applicable only in the present case and calculated to bridge a temporary gap and to
adjust conflicting interests in an existing and menacing controversy. The hiring of
Chinese laborers by the petitioner was rightly considered by the court likely to lead the
parties away from the reconciliation, which it was the function of the court to
effectuate.

vi. Instruction Learned:

Commonwealth Act No. 103 has vested the Court of Industrial Relations with
authority to intervene in all disputes between employees or strikes arising from the
difference as regards wages, compensation, and other labor conditions which it may
take cognizance of." (Central Azucarera de Tarlac vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 40
Off. Gaz., 3rd Supp., 319, 324.) Thus, it has jurisdiction to determine the number of
men to be laid off during off-seasons. For the same reason, the court may specify that
a certain proportion of the additional laborers to be employed should be Filipinos, if
such condition, in the court's opinion, "is necessary or expedient for the purpose of
settling disputes or doing justice to the parties."
The power of the legislature to make regulations is subject only to the condition
that they should be affected with public interest and reasonable under the
circumstances. The power may be exercised directly by the law-making body or
delegated by appropriate rules to the courts or administrative agencies.
 Decision of the Court:
The order appealed from is affirmed with costs to this appeal against the petitioner-
appellant.

vii. Ratio:
The fact that the petitioner does not so much as pretend that the hiring of additional
laborers is its prerogative as a matter of right. It seems to be conceded that during the
pendency of the dispute the petitioner could employ temporary laborers only within the
permission of the court of Industrial Relations. The granting of the application thus lies
within the sound judgment of the court, and if the court could turn it down entirely, its
authority to quality the permission should be undeniable, provided only that the
qualification is not arbitrary, against law, morals, or established public policy, which it
is not; it is an expedient and emergency step designed to relieve petitioner’s own
difficulties. It is also important to remember that it is not compulsory on petitioner’s
part to take advantage of the order. Being a permute petitioner is the sole judge of
whether it should take the order as it is, or leave it if it does not suit its interest to hire
new laborers other than Chinese.